Craig’s Forest Bill Saws Off Too Much

If U.S. Sen. Larry Craig really was looking to “develop solutions instead of conflict” with his proposed overhaul of the Forest Management Act, he failed.

Environmentalists, as usual, are up in arms.

“Environmentally,” said Sara Folger of the Inland Empire Public Lands Council, “it’s the worst possible scenario.”

The Idaho Republican’s proposals, such as offering states the right to manage federal lands and limiting who can file a timber appeal, will arm environmentalists with fund-raising propaganda for months.

Craig, however, will be lucky if the firestorm stops there.

Minority Democrats and moderate Republicans surely will line up to challenge his draft proposal, certain that they’ll score points with a public who supports current environmental regulations. Earlier this year, a Roper poll found that 51 percent of women and a solid minority of men don’t think government has done enough to regulate the environment.

Disappointments of the 104th Congress and a loss of House seats last month should have taught Republicans not to overreach. Although changes are needed in the way we conduct forest business, parts of Craig’s proposed bill overreach.

We agree with Craig that federal land should be managed for multiple use, that communities dependent on natural resources should have a greater say in forest policies and that the appeals process should be tightened to eliminate frivolous suits that have hamstrung timber harvesting in national forests.

We don’t agree, however, that the public should be shut out entirely from the appeals process.

Also, we can’t see how individual states would have the money or personnel to govern Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service land. A rural state such as Idaho, which consists of 65 percent federal lands, doesn’t have the money to fight fires or to clean up toxic wastes on federal land. In fact, the Gem State struggles to fund education properly and keep up with prison construction.

Before people jump aboard Craig’s thinly disguised “wise-use” bandwagon, we’d remind them that federal land belongs to all Americans - not just those who live closest to it. We all have a stake in its management.

Parts of Craig’s bill seem as radical to us as the Sierra Club’s call for an end to federal timber harvests.

We need consensus on timber issues.

Craig’s bill guarantees more conflict.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = D.F. Oliveria/For the editorial board